''The founding of Israel was based on displacement of Palestinians''- Look, I don't want to minimize that at all because people losing their homes is fucking terrible but that doesn't mean the solution is expelling Israelis now. There was a population exchange between Greece and Tuurkey in 1922. Both sides ethnically cleansed people. It was a terrible thing to do. But both Turkey and Greece exist now as two seperate states with clearly defined borders (if you ignore some shit erdogan tries to pull in the agean). And you don't question Greece's or Turkey's right to not be wiped off.

''Israeli identity is fake because it was based on smth that happened 3000 years ago!!!''- Ok sorry to break it to you but us Greeks have made our entire national identity revolve around who we were 3000 years ago. And if you want to argue abt fakeness of identity I would argue ours was a less organic one. Jewish people maintained the same religion and basic belief systems for 3000 years. They continuously felt the connection with Eretz Yisrael. We switched to Orthodox christianity from whatever 12 god shit we had, we lost most of our literacy that allowed us to keep tpuch with ancient texts, we embraced so many customs from the Ottomans and YET it was still valid when we tried to reclaim our ancient greek identity to build a nation partly on the basis of that

''European colonial powers helped prop up Israel which means it is an imperialistic state!''- Do you think Greece got independence or gained more land purely through OUR military strength lol?

The U.S. will use its veto power against a Palestinian bid to be recognized as a member state of the United Nations during a vote at the Security Council expected to take place Thursday evening. Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson for the State Department, described as premature an effort by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to gain member status at the U.N. He said there was not unanimity among the Security Council’s 15 members that the Palestinian Authority had met the criteria for membership, with unresolved questions over the governance of the Gaza Strip, where Israel is in a war to defeat and eliminate the controlling power, Hamas. “And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution,” Patel said.

Love your blog btw, you're a real one 😎

Thanks for the question, Molly. It's enormous, unwieldy, and totally inappropriate for this format.

So of course, I've spent days trying to answer it. To make the answer more readable, I'm going to split it into multiple parts.

Part 1: Who Has Supported a Two State Solution and Who Has Opposed it?

In seeing a two-state solution as practical and respectful, you're in very good company. That was the consensus view for decades...at least among Israelis and the international community.

1947 UN Partition Plan

The UN's partition plan proposed taking the 30% of Mandate Palestine which hadn't been turned into the Arab state of Jordan, and creating from it two more smaller states, one Jewish, one Arab.

Who supported it?

The UN, the UK, the US, and the Jewish leadership

Who opposed it?

The leaders of the surrounding Arab states and many of the Arabs of the Levant

What happened?

Instead of supporting a two-state solution, five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence.

After Israel fended off that attack, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza, and the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN was not created. From 1948 to 1967, none of these Arab powers suggested a Palestinian state because a Palestinian state was never their goal. Palestinianism was driven not by Palestinian nationalism, but by a rejection to Jewish nationalism.

1967 - After the Six-Day War

Israel offered to return captured territories in exchange for peace and recognition.

Who supported a two-state framework?

Israel, the US, much of the international community

Who opposed it?

The Arab League responded with the "Three No's" of Khartoum: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel

What happened?

No progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Camp David 2000

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state on approximately 94% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Who supported a two-state solution?

Israel, the US (Clinton administration), the international community

Who opposed it?

Yasir Arafat walked away without a counteroffer.

What happened?

The Second Intifada - a wave of about 140 suicide bombings and violence explicitly targeting civilians.

2008 Olmert Offer

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered even more generous terms, including a Palestinian state on territory equivalent to 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a shared, divided Jerusalem.

Who supported this two-state solution?

Israel, the US, the international community

Who opposed it?

Abbas told Olmert that the offer "was very serious," and that he needed to study the map, but he never responded or returned to the talks.

What happened?

A lot of things, none of them Palestinian statehood.

Throughout the 2000s-2010s, polls consistently showed Israeli public support for a two-state solution at 60-70% when coupled with security guarantees. American Jews overwhelmingly supported it. The international consensus embraced it.

The major obstacle to a two-state solution has been consistent over time.

If Palestinian leadership had ever actually sought a state, they'd have one. Instead, they sought maximalism and the death of Israel. At every turn, they've chosen war and ruin over the hard work of actually building a state.

This tells us a great deal about their goals and motives - and building a Palestinian state is not at the top of their list.

Palestinian statehood has never been the goal of Palestinianism. Palestinianism was created and has been sustained for the explciit purpose of the prevention/elimination of a Jewish state in any borders.

To come:

Part 2: If the two-state solution is possible, how can the prerequisite of Palestinian deradicalization be accomplished?

Right now is a ceasefire. Right now is the time to actually try to advocate for peace. I dont see many "pro-pal" blogs advocating for peace, they are still wanting to destroy Israel and Jews.

I want the violence to end. I want people to advocate for peace and not continue the propaganda ,a condemned terrorist group, spews.

I want everyone to be safe. I want peace.

I am first nations (Cree), and I have spent most of my life promoting "land back movement" in Canada. Sadly a majority of it is also negative propaganda to make us look like we would have a "bloody uprising", or mass deportations. Thats not what it is, but people dont care to learn. "I am for land back in theory but in reality I dont support it"- real comment I've received. That person had no clue what the actual "land back movement" meant. The reason I bring this up is because I feel Israelis feel the same or similar to us about sharing land, but still owning the land we traditionally belonged to, control over the land we are indigenous to. Its not about excluding people, or sharing, its about having control over our ancestral land.

The so-called two-state solution conference is not so much a peace initiative as it is a recycling of a political illusion that reality has surpassed. The conference, in format and timing, resembles an official funeral for a solution that no longer exists except in diplomatic statements. What is being presented today under the title of “two-state solution” does not constitute a project for liberation, but rather a permanent management of a colonial tragedy.

Europe, including France, may now theoretically recognize a Palestinian state, but in reality, it finances coexistence projects with the occupation, funded the war—being the mother of the nuclear bomb—and avoids any real measures against settlements, the siege, or stopping the genocide.

Palestinians do not need more words, but clear political action: recognition of a sovereign, independent state, the removal of the occupation, and an end to Western colonial partnerships with the "israeli" apartheid regime.

The real solution begins with changing the balance of power on the ground. Our people want an end to the occupation... not an international absolution.

Most Palestinians—especially the new generation—have come to consider this solution a political trap. How can one speak of “two states” when there are projects of annihilation, ethnic cleansing, annexation, and expansion, and there are more than 700,000 settlers in the West Bank?

Where is the state in the shadow of a wall that separates families, and with crossings managed at the whim of occupation soldiers?

We are not demanding a symbolic entity under "israeli" sovereignty; rather, we want real liberation, the right of return, and historical justice.

The majority of Palestinians, at home and in the diaspora, have come to see it as an illusion. How can we talk about "two states"? The issue has moved beyond symbolic recognition to a question of justice, the right of return, and the dismantling of the apartheid system.

The Palestine Liberation Organization is the product of a national experience and the foundation of Palestinian national action, and its pandemic stems from this basis.

[What is the alternative?]

The alternative is the dismantling of the colonial system from its roots. The alternative is not a ready-made recipe, but a long liberatory path. It begins, however, with the recognition that Israel is not a "democratic" state but a colonial regime, as happened in South Africa. We do not reject the "two-state solution" because we are radicals, but because it is no longer viable.

The alternative is a single democratic state on the entire land, where all people are equal without religious or ethnic discrimination. Or, at the very least, a liberation framework that opens the door to all options, far from the logic of "peace in exchange for submission."

Palestine today is a mirror to the world: between international law and the force of arms, between the victim and propaganda. Standing with Palestine is a test of human conscience, not just a political stance. We do not want the colonial system to use the proposal of a two-state solution to whitewash its record or its inaction. This requires the French left to free itself from the pressure of the dominant imperialist media or the fear of moral blackmail. We expect the left to reclaim its radical language: to say that what is happening in Palestine is not a conflict, but settler-colonialism and systematic genocide. And to stand with the truth without a false equivalence between the murderer and the victim. There is no neutrality in the face of genocide.

We are not asking for emotional solidarity, but for political and moral commitment. Palestine today is not just the cause of a people being slaughtered, but a universal issue in which our humanity is being tested.

Palestinians have the right to live in their homeland (or any other land) with security and dignity.

Israelis and Diaspora Jews also have the right to live in their homeland (or any other land) with security and dignity.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Britain and other Western allies of giving Hamas a "prize," saying: "It will not happen. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River."

Sept. 21, 2025, 6:20 AM MST / Updated Sept. 21, 2025, 12:37 PM MST

By Freddie Clayton

LONDON — The United Kingdom, Canada and Australia officially recognized Palestine as a state Sunday, a significant shift in foreign policy and a step away from their alignment with the United States, with several other European nations and U.S. allies set to follow suit this week.